Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2856 (RAJ)

Jasvindra Kaur v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-18

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved with the order dated 30.10.2019, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, whereby the effect and operation of its earlier order dated 24.10.2019 has been stayed till 29.11.2019. 2. The pertinent facts are that challenging the mutation No.63, dated 14.10.2016, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner. The said appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 18.07.2018. 3. The present petitioner challenged the said order dated 18.07.2018, passed by Deputy Commissioner (Colonization) before the Additional Commissioner (Colonization) cum Revenue Appellate Authority, which came to be allowed by order dated 24.10.2019. 4. While allowing the petitioner's appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the order dated 18.07.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonization) and directed him to correct the revenue entries, if giving effect to the impugned order (18.07.2018) the entry No.63 had been changed. 5. The respondents preferred the revision petition before the Board of Revenue, wherein the present petitioner has entered caveat so as to oppose grant of interim order. 6. Despite filing the revision petition aforesaid, the respondents moved an application before the Revenue Appellate Authority and prayed that his order dated 24.10.2019 be kept in abeyance. 7. Surprisingly, without issuing any notice to the petitioner or any other concerned party, on 30.10.2019 the Revenue Appellate Authority stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 24.10.2019 till 29.11.2019. 8. Mr. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.10.2019, passed by Revenue Appellate Authority contended that Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified in keeping his order in abeyance till 29.11.2019. He argued that once an order has been passed and the respondents have preferred a revision petition, it was not open for him to keep his order in abeyance. It was argued that neither any reason has been assigned nor petitioner was heard, while passing the order under challenge. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material relevant for the present purpose. 10. The Revenue Appellate Authority had allowed the petitioner's appeal on 24.10.2019, hence, it had become functus officio. 11. If there was any reason to review or amend the order, it was required for Revenue Appellate Authority to at least issue a notice to the concerned parties. 10. The Revenue Appellate Authority had allowed the petitioner's appeal on 24.10.2019, hence, it had become functus officio. 11. If there was any reason to review or amend the order, it was required for Revenue Appellate Authority to at least issue a notice to the concerned parties. Impugned order dated 30.10.2019 is, in any case, not sustainable. 12. Be that as it may, since life of the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 is only till 29.11.2019, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 13. Petitioner'S apprehension that since the Revenue Appellate Authority himself has stayed its own order till 29.11.2019, the Board of Revenue shall also feel inclined to grant interim order in respondents' favour, is misplaced. The Board of Revenue can never feel found by the fact that impugned order has been stayed till 29.11.2019. 14. As staying the effect and operation of the order by Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 30.10.2019 is illegal, as held in Para No.11 above, coupled with the fact that Board of Revenue is higher in hierarchy than the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Board of Revenue will take its own independent view of the matter, while hearing the stay application/revision petition pending before it. 15. The writ petition is disposed of with the observations aforesaid.